Cheque Bounce case: No presumption unless bank slip bears official mark or seal [Read the Order]

May 24, 2019:

Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that unless the bank slip bears official mark or seal, no presumption can be raised about presentation and dishonor of the cheque for maintaining a case under Section 138 NI Act.

A bench of Justice Thakur has passed the order in the case titled as Rajinder Singh Verma vs Haji B.K. Hanchnmani on 30.04.2019.

When a cheque bounce case reached the High Court, it made certain pertinent observations in respect of dishonor of cheque which are as under:

"Even though, the court is statutorily empowered, to, qua the apposite return memo hence enunciating, the, declining to honour the negotiable instrument concerned, rather avail the apposite therewith presumption, as, engrafted therein, (a) yet the afore presumption would be aptly galvanized, upon, the memo evidently carrying thereon, the official mark, and, seal, of the bank concerned. However, the afore presumption, as occurring therein, and, with a statutory coinage, “unless and such fact is disproved”, is, rebuttable, only upon, adduction into evidence, the return memo, (b) whereupon hence, it would also stand proven qua it not carrying the official mark or seal of the bank concerned. The evidence in consonance, with, the afore statutory coinage, occurring, in, the last part of Section 146 of the N.I. Act, is, prima facie, rather upsurging, given, Ex.CW1/B evidently not carrying the seal or official mark, of, the bank concerned, (I) AND, with one Naresh Kumar, Accounts Officer from ICICI Bank, The Mall Shimla, upon, his stepping into the witness box, rather showing his inability to bring the original of Ex.CW1/B, given, it not being traceable in the apposite records,

(ii) and, when only on production, of the original in Court of EX. CW1/B, and, evident existence thereon, of the afore statutorily mandated requirements, of it, hence carrying the official mark or seal of the bank concerned, would, hence enable, the, marshalling, of, the statutory presumption qua the apposite cheque being declined, to be honoured, to, rather hold the fullest conclusivity or sway,

(iii) besides it would  benumb any endeavour of the defence, to rely, upon the afore statutory coinage, occurring in the last part of Section 146 of the N.I. Act,

(iv) reiteratedly for want of production of the original of Ex.CW1/B, this court, is, constrained, to, conclude qua the statutory requirement, of, Ex.CW1/B on its presentation, for its, being honoured, hence, being declined to be honoured, rather remaining, within, the ambit, of, Section 146 of the N.I. Act, to be hence, disproven".

The High Court finally held "For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial court, hence, also does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record".

Read the order here:

Picture Source :